Tag Archives: regulation

“As Necessary”

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the kerfuffle over whether senior government officials—an ex-CIA Director, for instance—should have their security clearances continued when they leave government services.  As Sean Bigley put it in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed,

The idea was that senior administration officials should be allowed to retain their security clearances after leaving government so they could consult with successors as necessary.

Bigley suggested that this particular rationale even “makes sense for a brief, defined period.”

He’s overstating the case, though.  “As necessary” doesn’t justify an automatic continuance of a clearance that’s no longer automatically needed, nor does “as necessary” come close to representing a continued need to know that is a Critical Item in granting clearances.

All government personnel, regardless of rank, should lose completely their security clearances as soon as they leave government service.  “As necessary” is not continuous; it’s case-by-case.  Post-government service clearances should be granted on that case-by-case basis and no other.

Foreign Business Inside the PRC

Posted on by
Reply

The Qualcomm’s acquisition of NXP Semiconductors is supposedly in jeopardy as the People’s Republic of China threatens approval of the acquisition in its prosecution of its long-term trade fight with the US.

But wait—Qualcomm is an American company, and NXP is a Dutch company.  Why does the PRC even have a say in this?

[The PRC] is the last of nine markets where Qualcomm and NXP need approval from competition authorities….

There’s a perfectly straightforward way around this.  The two could stop doing business in the PRC, which is not a business-friendly nation, anyway, what with the nation’s demands that foreign companies give up their technology to domestic “partners” and that they install backdoors into their core softwares so the PRC government can go in and poke around at whim.

Certainly, there would be large initial costs from walking away from such a large market, and there would be market share reduction in the middle term from ceding that market to competitors.  But what would be the costs, really?  Less anticompetitive restrictions on the combined company’s operations, less government sanctioned—even demanded—theft of proprietary and intellectual property, saddling the PRC albatross to those competitors anxious to fill the “gap.”

And real gains from quitting the PRC market: more efficiencies from better focus on the other eight markets, and a better ability to keep and expand the combined company’s technological edge over its competitors by not having to give up that edge to the PRC.

Auditors and Regulators

Posted on by
Reply

American regulators regularly inspect American auditors—particularly the Big Four accounting firms, Ernst & Young, Deloitte & Touche, KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers—in order to give confidence to investors and the market at large that the auditors are giving accurate and balanced reports on balanced and accurate audits of the companies they audit.

Inspecting the auditors in the People’s Republic of China is a different matter.

Big Four accounting firms use their Chinese and Hong Kong affiliates to do significant work on the yearly audits of dozens of US companies doing business in China, including Walmart, Pfizer, and 3M, according to regulatory disclosures the auditors recently made for the first time.

Those “affiliates” actually are separate entities, and the PRC won’t allow those auditors to be checked up on by our regulators.  That’s a problem, as The Wall Street Journal put it:

The arrangement could leave investors in some of the world’s largest multinationals feeling like they can’t have full confidence that the auditors who scrutinize the companies’ finances have themselves been fully vetted by US regulators. And the regulators have no way of knowing whether those companies’ tens of billions of dollars of Chinese business has been subjected to outside scrutiny to help prevent errors or fraud.

It’s not small potatoes, either.

Walmart, which has more than 400 stores in China, is primarily audited by the US arm of Ernst & Young, but Ernst & Young’s Chinese affiliate did 10% to 20% of the work on the company’s latest audit, according to an EY filing with regulators. Pfizer, which got 7% of 2017 revenue from China, is primarily audited by KPMGs US firm, but KPMG China did 5% to 10% of the work.

Obviously, the PRC’s block needs to be an item of “discussion” in trade talks between the US and the PRC.  In the interim, the regulators should think—hard—about requiring companies doing business in the PRC that are audited, at least in part, by PRC auditors to report the details of those PRC auditors’ audits.  That way investors and the market at large could have some idea, at least, of the quality of the books of those American companies’ PRC branches.

Free Food Stamps

Posted on by
Reply

The House passed a farm welfare bill that includes a requirement for food stamp recipients to work for their welfare payouts last month, and the Senate passed its version—carefully without that requirement for actual work. Or perhaps just timidly passed, since Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R, KS) was intimidated by Progressive-Democrat Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) and couldn’t find the backbone to oppose her.

Now the two bills go to conference for resolution, and the outcome doesn’t look promising for work.

In today’s tight employment environment, that work would be easy to find, too, and in light of that, The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board made the comment

What’s bewildering is that Democrats seem willing to write off so much human potential as permanent wards of the state.

There’s nothing at all mysterious about that, though. The only potential that Progressive-Democrats see in these unfortunates is their votes, not their human potential. Indeed, that’s the Progressive-Democrat work-for-welfare program: vote for us Prog-Dems, or we won’t pay you any money.

President Donald Trump should support the House and inject some backbone into Senate Republicans, including especially Roberts, and announce he’ll veto any farm welfare/food stamp bill that doesn’t include the House’s work-for-stamps requirement.

In a Contest of Tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

In a piece purporting to show Where the Trade Battle Hurts the Most, Julie Wernau and Ira Iosebashvili had this comment:

Renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement are being closely watched in Canada, too. The Trump administration has used threats of auto tariffs to win concessions from Canada and Mexico, a strategy that hasn’t sat well with the two countries.

President Donald Trump also offered them, and the rest of the G-7, a regime of no tariffs at all. Their refusal even to discuss the offer doesn’t sit well with those of us outside the NLMSM.